[mcBesse]

Seems to me that the mere existence of the slider would force people to share less misinformation, regardless of whether they seriously consider the rating they give or just ignore the slider altogether the second time they see it. In the language of the article, it would work by priming people to be more aware of accuracy.

[IncRnd]

You're making the assumption that people would care about a slider and that it would be part of a behavior loop.

People might very well laugh at the slider and not be intimidated into respecting its power of graduated informational judgement. As of now, after two hours, the only two replies to the GP are saying they would ignore the slider.

Why do you believe a slider would force people not to share misinformation? There must be some basis for that opinion.

[edbob]

> Why do you believe a slider would force people not to share misinformation? There must be some basis for that opinion.

"Force" is a strawman, but there is a clear basis for thinking that an accuracy slider could cause people to be more thoughtful about sharing: the results of this study, which found that "subtly inducing people to think about accuracy" resulted in "participants in the treatment group were significantly less likely to consider sharing false headlines compared to those in the control group, but equally likely to consider sharing true headlines". The effect found was quite significant.

[IncRnd]

> "Force" is a strawman

No. It was the literal word that was used not a strawman, which is an intentionally misrepresented proposition meant to be debunked.

"Seems to me that the mere existence of the slider would _force_ people to share less misinformation"

[edbob]

Oh, you are correct. It seems that mcBesse chose their wording extremely poorly there, as "force" is indeed indefensible. I apologize for misreading that.